Weapon standards!

[chaztheducky 0]

@stigma6...wainright ex? wtf?

[hellfish6 7]

I agree with Sigma. Nothing quite so satisfying as killing an M-1 with a T-55.

[Sigma-6 29]

It's Sigma, not Stigma. lol

And, my mistake. . . it's not in Wainwright, it's in Suffield.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Canadian Troops Out-Gun U.S.

By Jennifer Malo

Medicine Hat News

April 13, 2002

Canadian troops took on the American army on the plains of CFB Suffield Friday and ended the day claiming victory.

The Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians) from Edmonton won the Can-Am tank competition against the 116 United States Cavalry by a score of 31 – 27.

Tank commander Lieut Aaron Paronuzzi said the competition was an ego trip for both teams. “It’s a feather in the cap for sure,†he said.

Four crews were chosen from the best personnel in the squadron to man the Leopard C2 tanks against the Americans’ M1A1 Abrams which were heavily used in the Gulf War. The tanks navigated a course and shoot at remote-controlled pop-up targets. They were judged on how many hits they made and how long it took to acquire and shoot the targets.

“It went very good,†said Paronuzzi. “But it was frustrating because there were some problems with logistics and just some radio traffic and target malfunction.â€

Despite those obstacles and the fact the American tanks had more firepower and speed, the Canadians managed to win the day.

The outcome was something American Sgt. Jane Sullivan didn’t expect. Judging from Thursday’s practice run, Sullivan was rooting for Team U.S.A. when they made their run.

“So far it’s pretty even-steven,†she said. “But I’d be biased and say the Americans might be winning. I have a feeling that these guys will win the Can-Am then these Canadians will come back down and take it back.â€

To the victor goes the next year’s hosting privileges. The National Guard’s 116 U.S. Cavalry has hosted the competition in Burley, Idaho only once since the competition’s birth in 1997.

But Sullivan, a tank refueler, wasn’t too sad to be returning home without the trophy. “Because this is our closest neighbour, the Americans and Canadians get along great,†she said. “We’re treated the same and that makes it so much better for us. It’s like any wartime situation, when you’ve got a team like effort, that means a lot to everybody.

The competition was also a chance to check out each other’s equipment. “The facilities are great,†said Sullivan. “The food is great. We want to take the cooks back with us but they won’t let us.†While the Americans were enjoying the Canadian cooking, the local troops were eyeing up the American Hummers.

“The reason (the Calvary) came up to Canada is because they get more maneuverability and usage of the field than we do because we’re limited,†she said. “They can get more hands on with their tanks.â€

This is the last year the Americans will be using the Abrams in the competition, said Sullivan, because they will be moving towards a more well-armoured model.

The Canadian Leopard C2 with its 105-mm gun held its own against the Abrams’ 120-mm gun.

In the past competitions, the decision has come down to a few points, said Canadian tank driver Trooper Jean Plamondon.

“We’re pretty confident about our (practice) run and this one went well too,: he said. “Its quite exhilarating when you’re on the move and looking for a target.â€

The hilly terrain of CFB Suffield provided a perfect course for the competition. “The run is challenging,†he said. “Its one of the best I’ve seen yet.â€

The Can-Am tank competition is part of the Exercise Robust Ram: a month-long training operation at CFB Suffield involving 2,500 troops from Edmonton, Lethbridge, Winnipeg, and Shilo, Manitoba.

<span id='postcolor'>

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is the last year the Americans will be using the Abrams in the competition, said Sullivan, because they will be moving towards a more well-armoured model. <span id='postcolor'>

I'm curious to know what the 116 Cav Brigade (who, BTW, I overran when I was OPFOR at NTC, giving their commanding general a nice proper salute when I drove past their TOC) is going to replace their Abrams with. Or does she mean upgrade their M-1A1 with M-1A2s?

[Sigma-6 29]

Well, she is a civvie writer. . . I think it's fair to say she doesn't know what she's talking about. . .

I'd assume they're going to an M1A1HA or an M1A2.

[AngusHeaf 0]

Having read through the posts and concepts here I can say that I think this idea is 100% A+. I totally agree with Sigma about the idea of reality yielding better gameplay. In my seasoned opinion the best missions are those that adhere closer to real life than to teams with exactly equal ammo, exactly balanced vehicles, and a couple of random flags spaced evenly apart from the teams (multiplayer adversarial of course). Suffice it to say it's far more strategic if you're playing in a tournament on a mission where you have plan both sides, not just plan for one side and then use the same plan on the other side.

This concept of reality yielding better gameplay can be directly applied to vehicles, weapons, and all that good stuff that you guys are working on and I think that's great. OFP needs more thinking (and less G36s, hehe). That's not to say OFP is brainless, farbeit from the truth. OFP already requires quite a bit of thought but it would be nice to take it to that next level. I just hope you guys get things together before OFP dries up and becomes just a bunch of nostalgic oldtimers waiting for OFP2 and holding themselves over with mods.  

Anyhow... One final thing I want to add about the Abrams that comes out of the current war with Iraq. A shining example that wholely underpowered weapons can be effective is illustrated in one of the recently lost (first ever) Abrams which was hit from behind with an RPG that started a cook-off of ammo and left it disabled. I know right now in OFP that the rear of the tanks is quite a vulnerable spot (in all tanks actually), but clearly not like it is in real life. Check out this link for the full story...

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1717992.php

Good luck with the project. I really REALLY hope you guys get this thing in gear and out to the folks. I for one would love to see it available and possibly included in some of the more sanctioned add-on packs!

[Johan_D 0]

Amen to all this! great idea..

One simple question.. how will it be implemented? will there be one PBO that overrules all the ammo already in the game?

If that is the case than it is easy to use and disable it when playing already existing campaigns..(maybe they are more interresting then..?)

So what to be expected when the work is done?

Johan

[DragoFire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Johan_D @ April 02 2003,01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Amen to all this! great idea..

One simple question.. how will it be implemented? will there be one PBO that overrules all the ammo already in the game?

If that is the case than it is easy to use and disable it when playing already existing campaigns..(maybe they are more interresting then..?)

So what to be expected when the work is done?

Johan<span id='postcolor'>

What would be required is a master "config" with all the weapon and ammo information in it, and addonmakers and modmaker would be "asked" to referance that file for weapon name and ammo name.

The only think I can think of that maybe required to be added to their addon's is "ammo count" and maybe range changes for cannons/rifles/pistols/etc..., depending on the weapons barrel length.

Missiles and rockets would require no changes other than "ammo count".

regards,

DragoFire

[DragoFire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AngusHeaf @ April 01 2003,21:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Having read through the posts and concepts here I can say that I think this idea is 100% A+. I totally agree with Sigma about the idea of reality yielding better gameplay. In my seasoned opinion the best missions are those that adhere closer to real life than to teams with exactly equal ammo, exactly balanced vehicles, and a couple of random flags spaced evenly apart from the teams (multiplayer adversarial of course). Suffice it to say it's far more strategic if you're playing in a tournament on a mission where you have plan both sides, not just plan for one side and then use the same plan on the other side.

This concept of reality yielding better gameplay can be directly applied to vehicles, weapons, and all that good stuff that you guys are working on and I think that's great. OFP needs more thinking (and less G36s, hehe). That's not to say OFP is brainless, farbeit from the truth. OFP already requires quite a bit of thought but it would be nice to take it to that next level. I just hope you guys get things together before OFP dries up and becomes just a bunch of nostalgic oldtimers waiting for OFP2 and holding themselves over with mods.  

Anyhow... One final thing I want to add about the Abrams that comes out of the current war with Iraq. A shining example that wholely underpowered weapons can be effective is illustrated in one of the recently lost (first ever) Abrams which was hit from behind with an RPG that started a cook-off of ammo and left it disabled. I know right now in OFP that the rear of the tanks is quite a vulnerable spot (in all tanks actually), but clearly not like it is in real life. Check out this link for the full story...

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1717992.php

Good luck with the project. I really REALLY hope you guys get this thing in gear and out to the folks. I for one would love to see it available and possibly included in some of the more sanctioned add-on packs!<span id='postcolor'>

I've looked at this before and not sure if it can be done.

The hit locations I've found to date are;

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

armor= 70;

armorStructural=2.000000;

armorHull=0.500000;

armorEngine=0.600000;

armorAvionics=1.400000;

armorMissiles=1.600000;

armorGlass=0.500000;

armorTurret=0.800000;

armorGun=0.600000;

armorLights=0.400000;

armorWings=0.600000;

<span id='postcolor'>

It might be possible to add some, but I've not tested it yet;

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

class HitEngine

{

armor=0.800000;

material=60;

name="engine";

passThrough=1;

};

class HitHull

{

armor=1;

material=50;

name="hull";

passThrough=1;

};

class HitTurret

{

armor=0.800000;

material=51;

name="turet";

passThrough=1;

};

class HitGun

{

armor=0.600000;

material=52;

name="gun";

passThrough=1;

};

class HitLWing

{

armor=0.600000;

material=53;

name="pasL";

passThrough=1;

};

class HitRWing

{

armor=0.600000;

material=54;

name="pasP";

passThrough=1;

};

<span id='postcolor'>

I hope someone else knows a bit more about this than I do.

P.S.

I know I missed a couple of hit locations (eg, tracks, etc..)

DragoFire

[chaztheducky 0]

@sigma...that doesent help. please try again.

[_WTF_onslaught 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mooncaine @ Feb. 24 2003,21:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (R71 @ Feb. 22 2003,03:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This should be what all guns look like from iron sight..             http://www.baconbomb.com/usmc/images/7.jpg  I put this in the BAS weapon topic too, in hopes that they would do this. http://www.baconbomb.com/usmc/ Not that theirs looks bad but it looks a bit more real to see the gun and not a shadow.  <span id='postcolor'>

Although the iron sight picture is off-topic when it comes to weapon config values, I'm glad you mentioned it here. I like the look of that--keep plugging and show it around when you can. It's a good argument; I'm convinced.<span id='postcolor'>

me too..hopefully BAS might do something similar for theirs.

*bumb*

[Sigma-6 29]

Again, we don't have to 'enforce compliance'. If people want to use a real-world standard in their addons, all they would do is simply note in the readme that their addon is compliant with the standard. There would be no onus on anyone who didn't want to comply with this to do it.

All this would do (all it *needs* to do) is let people know which addons use the standard.

Since the standard is based on real-world numbers. . . (RHA) anyone who used published RHA numbers would automatically be compliant anyway, to a certain degree.

--Question about those hit locations. . . (this is an open-ended question to the BIS crew. . . can any of those listed locations be used on any addon? or only the ones listed in the config for their class. . . (as in, can tanks only use the locations listed in the 'tank' class)?

[AngusHeaf 0]

So I guess the big question in my mind is the following... Can we expect a replacement of all the standard BIS units and vehicles with these realworld numbers? I love add-ons as much as the next guy but having them standardized on some system isn't much good if the rest of the vehicles and weapons in the game aren't on the same standard. Is it even possible to replace all these values in the existing vehicles, weapons, ammo?

[whisperFFW06 0]

I totally agree with Sigma-6 and DragoFire, this is the way we should go.

I'm part of a group playing on an online multiplayer/multiplatforms campaign. Our goal is to try to simulate a global conflict using 3 games, Sub Command for the naval part, Jane's FA18 for the air part, and OFP for the army part.

Seeing how realists are the 2 first games, we tried to achieve "maximum" realism in OFP. So we are using many addons. The main problem is, like DragoFire said, that values are completely different from one addon to the other.

One thing which greatly helped us is the Sigma-6 Russian tank pack and M1 pack. The fact that all heavy armored vehicles are from a single and reliable person makes everything homogenous.

So I've tried to set all other vehicles values correct, trying to use Sigma-6 values as base.

That means APCs, choppers, and Air defenses to be "rebuild".

I've not yet finished the "patch" (it's a pbo which override the addons with new vehicles, pbo which is purely private and internal to our campaign guys).

We are currently using :

- Sigma-6 tank packs

- DKMM 2S6 Tungunska

- Project Lavos MTLB (SA-13)

- DKMM M109 ADATS (not really realistic, because wouldn't be used in our conflict, but...well )

- Ash real choppers

- Vladimir BMP-3

I added the M6 Linebacker ADA (I didn't know one already existed ).

The disparity between addons was huge, in term of armor, damage and detection/engagement ranges. I did some research, but lacked the kind of standard and/or formulas that DragoFire is setting up. I guess I made many huge mistakes, because I learned while I researched about weapons and armor values.

Basically, it seems for armor values that RHAe can be used as armor base, but slight adjustements are to be made on relative armor values for the different parts of the vehicle (did I get that right, Sigma-6?).

About damage values of ammos, talking about HEAT/AFPDS/etc..., it seems that armor penetration is correct for heavy guns (well, I didn't touch these values in Sigma-6 pack, cause it remained as it is now, but this was my guess from read values... Once more, did I get it wrong?), but it gives some strange results when applied to APC.

The problem is that generally speaking, APC are over-armored in OFP (armor=200 for base BMP, isn't that a bit too high?). So light AT cannons (25/30mm) have to be overpowered, and can't use the main formula.

It seems that Ash had used real numbers for it's APCs, but it brings 2 issues : chopper have to be tweaked down to the level of bikes or men to keep the scale, and APCs are vulnerable to light weapons, even AK and M16 (in fact, it seems that it is the infantry which is comparatively overpowered in base OFP).

So we kept the "overpowered" light cannons, using a multiplicating factor depending of the type of ammo. Using Vlad' BMP3 as base, APFSDS multiplicator was around 2.75 (eg, data found for 25mm bushmaster M919 ammo was 32.5 RHAe @ 2000m @ 60° , so 32.5 * 2.77777 = 90).

About ranges, we used "real" found datas, and scaled them by 65% to keep it inside the OFP islands.

We added radar to gunner views, as per Sigma-6 standard.

Anyone interested, or having comments, is welcome , but I don't think I'll post the results, as it is not finished, probably with some errors, internal to our group and not meant to be redistributed until I contact avery addon makers from which I derived our patch (DKMM, Ash, Project Lavos, Vladimir, but he is in our team ). And it is very scoped on our campaign, so not that usefull.

Whis'

[suchey 0]

It looks as though a small arms standard was in the works a couple months back...have these values been determined yet? On a similar note, real world tracer color standard values for weapons would be a good addition as well.

[PFC_Mike 2]

This isn't a weapon standard, but I'd like to see all vehicles have attachable numbers/insignia like the Nam Pack helos and the Bas Soldier.

[AngusHeaf 0]

I know it's probably bad form to dig up old threads that haven't seen any action....

What's the status on this project? Is it dead? Stalled? Finished? Did it yield anything like a big CPP rewrite of all the units? I'm quite interested in seeing where this went since I can see a lot of areas of OFP that would benefit from standardization especially with so many mods being released that are trying to be realistic yet balanced against regular OFP stuff (which is inherently unbalanced and not as realistic as it could be).

If someone has a jumbo CPP with lots of changes maybe they could email it to me? Angusheaf@rocksraiders.com With all the new found interest in cooperation between addon teams to standardize stuff (mags, ammo, etc) I think it would be good to get the ball rolling on this massive balancing task again.

[DragoFire 0]

To all that have followed this topic, I'm planing to get back into it, now RW things have claimed down.

So I'll be looking forward to any help to source information on armour ratings for tanks, planes, building materials (by the thickness), etc... and weapon stat's (eg.. bomb/missile payload{weight and type},range,thurst, shell types {wether has payload or not and other stat's}, etc...)

I've already got some inforatmation, but as the old saying goes you can never have too much.

DragoFire

[hellfish6 7]

Looking forward to the results.

[DragoFire 0]

As part of the project I'll be including mag. for pistols, SMG's, Rifles, etc... Thus addon makers can just add to their CPP the mag./s and ammo is used. The plan is to have CPP ratings for each type of round available and mag.'s premaded for each mag. type and ammo type.

Eg. pistol mag standard is @9rd's, so you can have a mag for the three common ammo types;

FMJ= Full Metal Jacket

JHP= Jacketed Hollow Point

AP= Armor Piercing

We could the other types to the list if I/we get the request;

BLK=Blank

SS=Safety Slug

Tracer=T

This would be simlular for all handguns, Submachinegun, rifles(assault/sniper), tactical(machineguns,etc..).

I plan to review the data I've already done with the latest Core CPP.

DragoFire

[stgn 39]

As part of the project I'll be including mag. for pistols, SMG's, Rifles, etc... Thus addon makers can just add to their CPP the mag./s and ammo is used. The plan is to have CPP ratings for each type of round available and mag.'s premaded for each mag. type and ammo type.

Eg. pistol mag standard is @9rd's, so you can have a mag for the three common ammo types;

FMJ= Full Metal Jacket

JHP= Jacketed Hollow Point

AP= Armor Piercing

We could the other types to the list if I/we get the request;

BLK=Blank

SS=Safety Slug

Tracer=T

This would be simlular for all handguns, Submachinegun, rifles(assault/sniper), tactical(machineguns,etc..).

I plan to review the data I've already done with the latest Core CPP.

DragoFire

Excuse me but how are you gonna make FMJ, JHP and AP cause if you say that a JHP will hurt more when hitting bare skin than FMJ but FMJ will hurt more when hitting bodyamor(as it as fare as I remember it penetrades easier) Thn your gonna have a problem cause JHP will always be prefered cause ther is no shouch thing as bodyamor in OFP only more resistant soldiers. And AP is that for "AT" or what cause you cant realy thoot throu masiv things.

STGN

ps if I got somthing rong please correct me.

[DragoFire 0]

Quote[/b] ](STGN)

Excuse me but how are you gonna make FMJ, JHP and AP cause if you say that a JHP will hurt more when hitting bare skin than FMJ but FMJ will hurt more when hitting bodyamor(as it as fare as I remember it penetrades easier) Thn your gonna have a problem cause JHP will always be prefered cause ther is no shouch thing as bodyamor in OFP only more resistant soldiers. And AP is that for "AT" or what cause you cant realy thoot throu masiv things.

STGN

ps if I got somthing rong please correct me.

Ok here goes.

Yes OPF/:R doesn't have armour for personal (well not for the moment, I think there maybe a way!), and yes JHP does more damage upon hitting target, BUT one thing that you may or maynot know is that the JHP ISN'T a standard issue ammo round.

95% of all ARMED forces use FMJ as the standard ammo round, due to the possible body armour issue (that's not pressent in OPF/:R and the possible chance of the bullet passing through one target onto another behind it, hence the common phase "one shoot, two kills", which is almost impossible with a JHP.

As per the AP round is for armoured personal and lightly armour vehicles.

The idea behind adding these extra ammo types is to allow addon makers the option to make addons with more features, eg. bullet proof glass, bigger blood slpatter effects for JHP rounds.

And once I've figured out how the armour peneration effect code works, then we might be able to have bodyarmour and other cool things, that can be added to vehicles.

But all this will be slow work.

DragoFire

[DragoFire 0]

I've sent Sigma-6 a message asking for info. on the armour ratings of the tanks he's made, in hope of working out a few bugs.

[DragoFire 0]

I've been toying with the idea of using a couple of scripts to make a few of the weapon damage effects work more realistic, but this won't be done till I've finished the core of the config.

Once thats done, I start testing the script side of this project.

If everything works as planned we might be able to add personal bodyarmour to the mix of OPF/R, along adding a large amount of ammo types to firearms and explosive types to vehicle weapons.

So hang in there with me.

And as always any help welcomed.

DragoFire

[stgn 39]

Erm as I have sugested before if it's posible script for the gun so that you can can define which mags can be used in the gun and then ghanging those you pick up to the ones that is calculated for you gun so M16A2 mags could be used in M4A1.

then offcause you would have to define acouple of mag's for you gun if you wanted it to fire differently whit another kind of ammo.

STGN